Jesus a Muslim??

[Gxg (G²)]

To say mohammed was flawed is to downplay his many crimes to being naughty. .

Incorrect, as one would be reading into things more than what's said by assuming the term "flawed" means crimes weren't as naughty, just like it'd be erroneous assuming that one saying SOlomon or David were flawed meant that David's adultery/murder and many issues or Solomon's bad problem with lust/idolatry (as I Kings 11 shows) was somehow not an issue. Flawed is flawed...and evil actions are evil actions, just as human struggles are human struggles and ALL have them, yourself included alongside all others on this board.

He was evil, and if anyone used him, it was not YHWH

No more logical in saying that than it'd be to claim that the Lord didn't use others like the King of Babylon---“God’s servant” Nebuchadnezzer ( 2 Kings 24:1-3, 2 Kings 25, Ezra 5:11-13, Jeremiah 21:6-8 , Jeremiah 25:8-10 , Jeremiah 27:7-9 , Jeremiah 29 , Jeremiah 43:9-11, Ezekiel 29:18-20 Daniel 1-4 )...or others like Balaam (as discussed before ), Uzziah (who started good but later went into pride/became leprous as king), Jeroboam (who started well but later ended up corrupting a lot in Israel per I Kings 12-13), Samson--who chased women and often rebelled against the commands of God---Gideon, who himself was used greatly of the Lord to drive out the Midianites in Judges 6-8 and yet ended up going on a vicious genocidal campaign toward those who insulted him from Ephraim and made a golden ephod that became a grave source of idolatry amongst the people and many others.

As said before, though many who worked with others in Islam may realize that the Qur'an was never God's Word and Muhammad was deeply flawed, they also realized that it is was the case that it contained many things that were indeed aspects of the Word....and with that in mind, they realized that they did not have to get rid of everything within it that was indeed the Word of God.
...nor was it necessary to promote the lie that all things done by the man were never of God/good.

From where I stand, I'm not saying it is my belief that everything called "scripture" was inspired by God. Taken at face value the phrase "all scripture is inspired by God" can be taken to mean that...for all truth is God's Truth--and there are many things within the Qura'n that are indeed true.


Even as it concerns what the Qua'ran says, it seems apparent that Muhammad had great understanding of the scriptures and faith in the angels who told Zechariah he would have a son (as in Luke 1:18, 57-60).

When the angels said, 'O Mary, ALLAH gives thee glad tidings of a son through a word from HIM; his name shall be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, honoured in this world and in the next, and of those who are granted nearness to God;

'And he shall speak to the people in the cradle, and when of middle age, and he shall be of the righteous.



"—Qur'an, Surah 3:38-48


​

Additionally, Muhammad also spoke of the resurrection of Jesus:

"Thereupon she pointed to him. They said, 'How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?' Jesus said, 'I am a servant of ALLAH. HE has given me the Book, and has made me a Prophet; 'And HE has made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and has enjoined upon me Prayer and almsgiving so long as I live; 'And HE has made me dutiful towards my mother, and has not made me arrogant and graceless; 'And peace was on me the day I was born, and peace will be on me the day I shall die, and the day I shall be raised up to life again.'
—Qur'an, Surah 19:30-35
​

Mohommad was very familiar with the teachings of the Jewish and Christian holy book the Bible (perhaps in reading it himself, if he was literate, or in learning of it through oral means via storytelling). He was very upset with the hypocrisy among the people: the idol worship , and anything dishonoring to God was very revolting to Him. He believed that Allah had revealed the Torah and the Gospels (the Injil).

"ALLAH is HE besides Whom there is none worthy of worship, the Living, the Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining. HE has sent down to thee the Book containing the truth and fulfilling that which precedes it; and HE has sent down the Torah (Law of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guidance to the people; and HE has sent down the Discrimination (judgement between right and wrong)."—Qur'an, Surah 3:3-4
​

​

John 11:45-52

The Plot to Kill Jesus
45Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, put their faith in him. 46But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.

"What are we accomplishing?" they asked. "Here is this man performing many miraculous signs. 48If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place[a] and our nation."

49Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! 50You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."

51He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.


​

The phrase "die for the people" invokes the memory of the Maccabean martyrs (II Macc, 7:37-38). With a typical Johannine double meaning, Caiaphas's pronouncement anticipates Jesus's substitutionary atonement. IMHO, the man's actions do not mean that Caiaphas — like one who was mad, or out of his senses — uttered what he did not understand. For he spoke what was his own opinion. Rather, a higher impulse guided his tongue, because God intended that he should make known, by his mouth, something higher than what occurred to his mind. What Caiaphas said at that time was done in 2 senses.....one which dealt with the wicked design of putting Christ to death, which he had conceived in his mind...and the other concerning what God had in mind when it came to how the Lord wanted Christ to die ( Acts 2:22-24 ), thus making Caiphas's words a prediction. Its similar to what occurred when God intended to bless his people by the mouth of Balaam, on whom he had bestowed the spirit of prophecy...even though Balaam's intentions were to curse (Numbers 22-25).

And with the author of the Qur'an, its interesting to me to see how much of it was off and yet simultaneously how much of it was spot on....as if God even then knew what could happen with the errors and still found some kind of way to work it to His advantage as He always does with all things (Proverbs 16:4).


History is history and the Lord works all things out for His own ends. ..and evil being done by people doesn't equate to all actions done by them being evil...especially as it concerns historical context.

. Mohammed's warped religion has caused war and violence since its inception.

Just like CHristianity has been used to cause war/violence (and conversely, Judaism when it comes to persecutions against other Christians/Messianics not agreeing), be it with the Crusades and many other inquisitions or the treatment of others in Israel and many other places. Nothing really unique there as it concerns war/violence, nor does the violence come close to speaking on behalf of ALL who are in the camp of Islam just as the violence done by many---from genocides to slavery---doesn't speak for all who are CHristians if one's going to be consistent and intellectually honest with history. And for anyone talking on the Quran not leading to peace, they've not read it or talked with all types of Muslims and really go with the caricatures rather than actually dealing with people in real life. Sufi Muslims are a good example of others who are for peace and did so on the basis of the Quran.

Unlike Judaism and Christianity, hate and intolerance toward others is integral to islam

Saying such doesn't show such or prove anything anymore than it'd be true for one to claim that Christianity leads to Replacement THeology simply because it's "integral." ..especially when the same ones using texts from the Quran don't have hate or intolerance simply because of texts used for such by others, just as believers don't use texts on slavery or killing women/children in the OT as signs of it being acceptable simply because others did so. One has to deal with the text and history before making assertions and there's no way around that. Simple as that


One thing I've often seen people do is claim that all Muslims are meant to be violent--with the narrative being that believers are not and have never been in the scriptures....and yet they forget on how the scriptures, for anyone studying them honestly, have had an EXTENSIVE history of vioolence. Elisha himself called down a curse on others for making fun of his bald head and had 2 bears kill over forty-youths ( 2 Kings 2:23-25/ 2 Kings 2 ). FOr others saying that Mohommad was vindictive and Biblical prophets were not, I think there's a big lack of honesty in seeing how others responded.....and there's a reason that others often chose to become Zealots for the Lord.

The same thing goes for Samson in Judges 14-16 when the Spirit of the Lord came upon him and he went to war with the Phillistines....with Judges 15 being interesting after seeing how he had a riddle he made solved and the Spirit of God empowered him as he took vengence upon them by killing their own people to pay the winners what was agreed on. Again, anyone studying the prophets and OT Israel in how they did things will see that it wasn't anywhere close to being a pretty narrative or something where violence wasn't at times praised/celebrated.

As it is, the example of Elisha is interesting when seeing how he responded to mocking with the Lord's approval in shutting things done.

And all in the OT who followed God were believers, just as it is with believers today....be it Moses when it came to the slaughter of the Midianites for enticing Israel into sexual immorality after Balaam taught them how to seduce them, or David in his conquest of Jerusalem/wars---or Josiah in II Chronicles 33-34 who wiped out all of the idolators in the land/put them to death...and many others. The account of Maccabees also is another to consider as well as Phineas (more shared here ). In the new book Laying Down the Sword: Why we Can’t Ignore the Bible’s Violent Verses, Philip Jenkins brilliantly compares and contrasts the Bible and the Quran in terms of sheer violence.

​

For other good reviews:

• Is The Bible More Violent Than The Quran? : NPR
• The Bible vs. The Quran: Which is More Violent?

War and peace in Quran and Bible
Building Bridges program with WTPN - Philip Jenkins and Jerry Davis (28th

No. Getting right with YHWH is the goal. Eternity is just a bonus

Eternity is not the bonus, as the purpose of living right for God is connected with living forever ---the HOPE of the righteous that David discussed multiple times when it came to the righteous looking upon the face of the Lord and not being abandoned to the grave.

 

[sevengreenbeans]

Jesus was not "honorable" OR respectful toward other religions. Nor was He humanistic. He reached out to the Samaritans only to convert them. There is no way other than by faith in Jesus for anyone to reach the goal of oneness with the Father so it would not be honorable to NOT preach that gospel to everyone. Including atheists. No matter what anyone "supports" if they refuse Jesus they are doomed. If a Muslim adopts faith in Jesus, he/she is no longer a Muslim. Mohammed is dead. That is very important for everyone who is Muslim to accept. A dead prophet is just a dead prophet no matter what he accomplished in life. No Christian would think Isaiah or Ezekiel would have to be recognized as part of the way to God, it is the words they left behind that are important since those are inspired by God. It is part of Muslim faith to lift Mohammed on a level with Jesus which Mohammed never ever reached nor could.

There is no evidence Yeshua tried to "convert" the Samaritans to anything. He called them neighbors and friends.

Muslims do not place Yeshua and Mohammed on the same level.

 

[pat34lee]

Incorrect, as one would be reading into things more than what's said by assuming the term "flawed" means crimes weren't as naughty, just like it'd be erroneous assuming that one saying SOlomon or David were flawed meant that David's adultery/murder and many issues or Solomon's bad problem with lust/idolatry (as I Kings 11 shows) was somehow not an issue. Flawed is flawed...and evil actions are evil actions, just as human struggles are human struggles and ALL have them, yourself included alongside all others on this board.

Flawed is one thing, evil is another. There was nothing redeeming in mohammed's life. He was a liar and murderer many times over, and his religion reflects this. It is considered justifiable to lie, cheat and kill to make people follow islam.

As said before, though many who worked with others in Islam may realize that the Qur'an was never God's Word and Muhammad was deeply flawed, they also realized that it is was the case that it contained many things that were indeed aspects of the Word....and with that in mind, they realized that they did not have to get rid of everything within it that was indeed the Word of God.

What is the worst form of lie? That which is closest to truth but leads to the wrong conclusion. If the koran were written about bigfoot and aliens, it would be easy to dismiss. The subtle lies are more dangerous, as they can decieve the unwary.

Even as it concerns what the Qua'ran says, it seems apparent that Muhammad had great understanding of the scriptures and faith in the angels who told Zechariah he would have a son (as in Luke 1:18, 57-60).

Several of the closest people to mohammed were Catholics. They helped him to shape the new religion, which is why they venerate Mary.
How the Vatican created Islam

And with the author of the Qur'an, its interesting to me to see how much of it was off and yet simultaneously how much of it was spot on....as if God even then knew what could happen with the errors and still found some kind of way to work it to His advantage as He always does with all things (Proverbs 16:4).

The most dangerous lie is that which has some truth to it.

Just like CHristianity has been used to cause war/violence (and conversely, Judaism when it comes to persecutions against other Christians/Messianics not agreeing), be it with the Crusades and many other inquisitions or the treatment of others in Israel and many other places.

One difference is to look at the person who gave the words. Yeshua never killed, lied or broke any commandment. Mohammed spent his life breaking them.

One thing I've often seen people do is claim that all Muslims are meant to be violent--with the narrative being that believers are not and have never been in the scriptures....and yet they forget on how the scriptures, for anyone studying them honestly, have had an EXTENSIVE history of vioolence.

There was a lot of violence in the OT, and not all of it was condoned. Much of it was conditional to the circumstances of the time. The scriptures show YHWH's works in spite of our failures. The koran condones violence against anyone who does not follow them.

Eternity is not the bonus, as the purpose of living right for God is connected with living forever ---the HOPE of the righteous that David discussed multiple times when it came to the righteous looking upon the face of the Lord and not being abandoned to the grave.

Eternal life without YHWH would be literally hell. This is why he had to ban Adam and Eve from the garden and the tree of life.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Eternal life without YHWH would be literally hell. This is why he had to ban Adam and Eve from the garden and the tree of life.

Indeed---and thus, eternal life with Him is the goal. The reasons why the Lord went through so much trouble to find a way to redeem man and make it possible for Him to not be seperated from him forever.

Flawed is one thing, evil is another.

No it isn't, as anything short of what God's standards are is evil/sin----and that's something often forgotten by others when it comes to forgetting what the grace of the Lord is about. People assume someone who is a terrorists is simply evil while they look at their own issues which may seem less by comparision (i.e. gossip, anger, greed, etc.) and say "Well, it's just a flaw/struggle I have"---but they don't see it as evil....and that's not being honest with the Word of God. Sin is sin, regardless of the degree or level (James 4:16-17 )...and it is all evil in his sight, with it already being the case that NO MAN is rightoues in/of their own power by comparision ( 1 Timothy 6:9-11, Luke 18:18-20 /Mark 10:17-19/ ). Christ noted the same thing to his followers, even showing that the good things often attempted by his children on behalf of others were considered as "evil" in the sight of the Lord when it came to comparision to what GOd's absolute best was:

Matthew 7:11

9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Matthew 7:10-12 /

​

Paul addressed the issue plainly in Romans 1:18-24 as well as Romans 3

And also in Titus 3

Titus 3:1
Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, 2 to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone.

At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. 4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.
​

There was nothing redeeming in mohammed's life. He was a liar and murderer many times over, and his religion reflects this. It is considered justifiable to lie, cheat and kill to make people follow islam.

Nothing you said has anything to do with what is practiced in Islam--and short of actually addressing the Quran directly, what one does in saying "Islam promotes such and such" without showing it is again slander since it's based on heresay and not on what the text actually speaks on....as well as what is actually done, seeing how often Muslims have already spoken against every single one of the things you claim the religion is about....and Biblically, one would be inconsistent in ignoring where the same already happened. David lied multiple times, as did Abraham and many others. It happening is not always a justification as much as historical record. It's no different with Muhammad.

THere's no escaping the reality that Muhammad did a lot of bad, as well as a lot of good/things directly in line with what the Bible calls for. He addressed things such as polytheism amongst the Arab people/condemned it for what it was--and he sought to unite his people as well.

As another wisely noted:

While it is an error to maintain, as Muslims do, that Muhammad was history’s greatest moral example, some critics are equally mistaken when they go to the opposite extreme and portray Muhammad as history’s worst moral example. Indeed, Muhammad had many positive characteristics. We know that he was courageous, both because he patiently endured several years of persecution in Mecca and because he fought in numerous raids and battles. Throughout his life, Muhammad placed an emphasis on helping orphans and widows. There were times when he showed great mercy. He was an ardent monotheist, and despised idolatry. He told his followers to heed God’s prophets, such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David. These are areas where even non-Muslims would agree that Muhammad exhibited positive traits.
​

When someone argues that Muhammad was a robber or a murderer, it is often the case that many Muslims suddenly cry out in one accord, "But he was merciful and kind! He started Islam!! How dare you say something bad about him!? He was the greatest prophet ever! Stop being so intolerant!"

The difficulty here is that, no matter how loudly a Muslim shouts these objections, they have no power to overcome the historical fact that Muhammad was a robber and a murderer.....and if saying he was the greatest example, any claim to moral superiority will be an empirical issue, that is, a matter of examining and weighing the evidence.
Tragically, examining the evidence is something that most Muslims seem unwilling to do. For example, Abul A’la Mawdudi presents the following picture of Muhammad:

He is entirely different from the people among whom he is born and with whom he spends his youth and early manhood. He never tells a lie. The whole nation is unanimous in testifying to his truthfulness. . . . He is the very embodiment of modesty in the midst of a society which is immodest to the core. . . . He helps the orphans and the widows. He is hospitable to travelers. He harms no one . . . [He] is such a lover of peace that his heart melts for the people when they take up arms and cut each other’s throats. . . . In brief, the towering and radiant personality of this man, in the midst of such a corrupted and dark environment, may be likened to a beacon-light brightening a pitch-dark night or to a diamond in a heap of dead stones. . . . [After he begins to deliver the message of Islam the] ignorant nation turns against him. Abuses and stones are showered at his august person. Every conceivable torture and cruelty is perpetrated upon him. . . . Can anyone ever imagine a higher example of self-sacrifice, brotherliness and kind-heartedness towards his fellow beings than that a man would ruin his happiness for the good of others, while those very people for whose betterment he is striving should stone him, abuse him, banish him, and give him no quarter even in his exile, and that, in spite of this all, he should refuse to stop working for their well being? . . . When he began preaching his Message, all of Arabia stood in awe and wonder and was bewitched by his wonderful eloquence and oratory. It was so impressive and captivating that his worst enemies were afraid of hearing it, lest it should penetrate deep into the recesses of their hearts and carry them off their feet making them forsake their old religion and culture. It was so matchless that the whole legion of Arab poets, preachers, and speakers of the highest caliber failed to bring forth its equivalent. . . . This reserved and quiet man who, for a full forty years, never gave any indication of political interest or activity, suddenly appeared on the stage of the world as such a great political reformer and statesman that without the aid of radio, telephone and press, he brought together the scattered inhabitants of a desert extending across twelve hundred thousand square miles. He joined together a people who were warlike, ignorant, unruly, uncultured, and plunged in self-destructive trivial warfare—under one banner, one law, one religion, one culture, one civilization, and one form of government. . . . He accomplished this feat not through any lure, oppression or cruelty, but by his captivating manner, his winsome personality, and the conviction of his teaching.


--Abul A’la Mawdudi, Towards Understanding Islam (Islamic Circle of North America, 1986), pp. 52-67.
​

This is actually a very condensed version of Mawdudi’s reverent depiction of his beloved prophet, but it accurately reflects the Islamic conception of Muhammad by many. The problem, of course, is that this conception is horribly inaccurate. The historical Muhammad (that is, the Muhammad we can know about through history) was psychologically unstable at many points, ruthless towards his enemies, and, according to some, sexually perverted. This isn’t to say that Muhammad was all bad. He wasn’t, and Mawdudi is correct in maintaining that Muhammad’s character played a role in converting people to Islam. Even so, while Muhammad may have had many redeeming features, some of his less admirable characteristics are difficult to ignore.


But again, despite where there were flaws, there is no justification for saying that all things done by the man were bad.

Again, it doesn't matter who the person is---be it Muhammad or even presidential figures. We're not to slander ANYONE. Period.

If one is going to condemn everything done by the man (including the things the Quran already agrees with), one must be consistent in logical application or else they do a selective argumentation/situational ethical standard that doesn't really add up. One needs to go to their neighbors, look at all the areas they've sinned and note that everything they do is simply filth/garbarge to God----and one needs to look (for another example) at the Biblical characters such as Solomon and say that all the wisdom he walked in was really a "lie" since he felt into gross immorality in the later part of his life/promoted much evil, be it sexual immorality or multiple gods and many other things.



As said before, though many who worked with others in Islam may realize that the Qur'an was never God's Word and Muhammad was deeply flawed, they also realized that it is was the case that it contained many things that were indeed aspects of the Word....and with that in mind, they realized that they did not have to get rid of everything within it that was indeed the Word of God.

The most dangerous lie is that which has some truth to it.

Indeed--and another is forgetting the lie that things are either one way or another, as it concerns avoiding the reality of partial relevaltion/knowing that people don't have to have it all together in order to be promoted by the Lord. It'd be a dangerous lie claiming that all things Islam are bad and thinking GOd is cool with it.

One difference is to look at the person who gave the words. Yeshua never killed, lied or broke any commandment. Mohammed spent his life breaking them.

Looking at Yeshua who advocated the Torah requires one to look at the TOrah and see what was promoted from it---and there were plenty of people in the Torah He advocated/pointed others to (even those from his own background) who were VERY flawed, breaking commandments or lying and doing many other things...and yet God in His grace worked through them. No way around that---and the same thing goes for others. Even so, as it concerns where Muhammad did things that were damaging, there's no way of avoiding the reality that much was good and that one would be slanderous trying to say it was all bad. That's something we're not allowed to do Biblically and Yeshua pointed to that.

There was a lot of violence in the OT, and not all of it was condoned. Much of it was conditional to the circumstances of the time.

The scriptures show YHWH's works in spite of our failures. The koran condones violence against anyone who does not follow them.

Saying the SAME thing that many have noted on the Quran. Again, it isn't dealing with the text claiming "The Kora condones violence" since there were numerous Muslims/Muslims groups throughout history dealing with the historical context of things and noting where condoning violence was not a way of life.

Seriously, if you don't have anything from the text of the Quran and the historical context of it, one doesn't really need to be speaking on what the Quran does and doesn't advocate since they're simply supporting slogans---no different than people saying "Well, the OT and CHristianity advocated for the abuse of slaves and women being second-class" and not addressing scripture on it or seeing where others used texts to justify things like the text where the Israelites killed the people of Midian for their sexual immorality, killed the men and took women/children as captives all at the leadership of Moses.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Eternal life without YHWH would be literally hell. This is why he had to ban Adam and Eve from the garden and the tree of life.

Indeed..

What is the worst form of lie? That which is closest to truth but leads to the wrong conclusion. If the koran were written about bigfoot and aliens, it would be easy to dismiss. The subtle lies are more dangerous, as they can decieve the unwary.

That's the reality of realizing that Christ is the fulfillment of all truth and that others can have partial relevation ..and thus, as said before, why others note where there's truth in the Qur'an as well as error and both have to be acknowledged. By the logic you're utilizing, one has no business referencing ANYTHING in the culture around you when it comes to ministry if it comes from someone who doesn't see full truth in Yeshua--be it going to the news channel and denying someone's accurate when they say the weather will be a certain way or denying what others have said in the world of science when it comes to physics even though they're not saved

Several of the closest people to mohammed were Catholics. They helped him to shape the new religion, which is why they venerate Mary.
How the Vatican created Islam Read more: Did the Vatican Create Islam? : General Conspiracies

Dude, if you're gonna make an argument, use a credible source. Historically there has been no evidence whatsoever that the Vatican helped create Islam and that's way out there. What existed was the Byzantine Empire, which had an extensive influence on things when it came to promoting Christianity). The "Vatican's behind Islam!!!!" falsehood has been addressed multiple times (more here and here) whenever it comes to people wanting to denounce all things Catholic as they do with all things Muslim

Most, if not ALL of Islam is based on non-canonical Jewish sources that existed amongst the illiterate Jews of western Arabia and which were told by storytellers in the public market places of mainly Mecca. And the same goes for stories told by many of the Christians who were exiled from the Eastern empire due to their views being herectical/not accepted by the Orthodoxy of the day.

When understanding the background of how the Quran developed, some things tend to make more sense as to how it developed as it did.

For in my view, studying one of the earliest critiques of St.John of Damascus is amongst the best routes to go with since his view was that Islam (when it was starting) was essentially a heresy within Christianity rather than something different at ALL points from Christianity. He called it the "Heresy of the Ishmaelites." John the Damascene was a saint and an early Church Father who experienced Islam during its infantile stages...

One good review on the issue can be found if going here. To judge from the subsequent nature of Islam, Christianity seems to have been particularly interesting to him, since Muhammad adopted and adapted quite a few Christian ideas...and IMHO, when studying the people who initially came into the land where Muhammad grew up in, it seems that much of the Disputes between the Eastern Orthodox Christians and the Roman Catholic papacy influenced Muhammad s understanding of Christianity on certain levels. Despite all of the ways that Muhammad did erroneous things, I'd tend to agree with others who feel that the man was partially a victim of Christianity/the evolution it went through.

From what I understand, Constantine legalized Christianity and made it the official religion of the Empire---and during the time when the Nicene Creed established orthodoxy, especially as it related to the Person of Christ, Expulsion of heresy occurred as a result of nationalized Christianity—many “Christians” with variant beliefs migrated/fled to the Arabian peninsula, which by the 6th century comprised a mixture of Jews, Hanifs, polytheistic Arab tribes, and “Christians” with varying beliefs.

In the context that Muhammad lived in, his influences were Arab polytheists, "heretic" Christians, Jews, and Abrahamic monotheists called Hanifs. The Qur’an addresses a number of heresies that had already been dealt with 300 years earlier during the age of great Christian councils, and we should learn to read it through the cultural lens of its time. Some examples of heresies it addressed were ones like saying that Jesus/God the Father and the Holy Spirit were "3 different gods" (as many Muslims often say "CHristians" say when failing to understand that Muhammad said not to support the ideology of 3 gods since other Christians were condeming such).


To give a different perspective on why so much within the Qur'an is similar to what is found in Christianity and why Mohommad knew that, it was once noted that what was noted in the Qura'an on Christ was indeed the same Yeshua but with a newly decorated biography---with the essentially looking to the right person but with an incomplete understanding that could lead to bad consequences.

Seeing how Muhammad himself was not really a scholar on all points and was heavily influenced by the accounts of Christ he may've heard from other believers in Christ, it is not surprising to me to see the many ways in which some of the things he notes are not fully accurate..or as well expounded upon as in the very Bible which the Quran encourages all to actually study. Its always interesting to see the many accounts of believers in Christ who noted that they grew up studying the Quran--and yet, grew from that into reading the scriptures when they noticed how the Quran instructed them to do so...and thus, they ended up reading the scriptures/gaining a fuller view of what the Quran only saw to a limited degree...

Some of it's akin to the dynamic of folk or tale tales and real biographies, as the former deal with unbelievable elements, related as if it were true and factual, even thoug there are many true aspects it was built around while other things are exaggerations. Some stories are exaggerations of actual historical/biographical eventS (i.e. Davey Crocket and the Alamo, John Henry, etc), for example fish stories ('the fish that got away') such as, "that fish was so big, why I tell ya', it nearly sank the boat when I pulled it in!"---but compared to an actual biography, one will get fuller details that describe an event in its fullness and give clarity on one aspect that wasn't understood as fully.

For a practical example of this within the Quran, one can consider the example of where it was noted that the Lord made clay pigeons come to life. In the Quran, it notes that "Jesus could make birds out of clay and create life for the amusement of his playmates with "Allah's" permission. He would make clay birds into which he breathed and they were transformed, by the Lord's permission into real birds that could fly. i.e. duplication of the process of CREATION, by God's permission. Seeing that, one must ask 'what purpose was there in allowing 'Jesus' to make birds out of clay what could fly (with Allah's permission) further God's purpose? For God doesn't do things without a purpose.

That fact that 'Jesus' could do this tells us that as a child 'Jesus' could create life. And who creates life, but God Himself? In the final analysis, perhaps the Qur'an is demonstrating that 'Jesus' is the Creator. For notice according to the Qur'an "Allah" creates through His Word---and Jesus/Isa is considered the Word and Spirit of God. Perhaps the author of the Qur'an didn't realize what this all meant...as he repeated Christian folklore and made a huge mistake in repeating it without understanding the full implications.

From an historical perspective, some of the stories in the Quran must have been circulating around Arabian caravan routes where Muhammad may have heard them when he was in the employ of his wife Khadija. If interested, the following 7-minute video explains a few of them.

Is the Quran Corrupted? Biblical Characters in the Quran​

With Eastern Christianity (in some circles), similar things have often come up...as there's one account somewhere I remember learning of where the 18yrs of the life was Christ (between when he was 12 and when he went into ministry) involved Him traveling to India, making playful miracles and learning. In the Quran itself, those specific folklore stories are from the second century and older. Some of the material in the Ahadith is actually taken verbatim from the Gospel of Thomas. The story of Jesus talking to Mary in the Cradle, as it appears in the Quran in Surah 3:38-48, has always interested me. For the story was most likely being told in the times of Muhammad when considering the pseudepigrapha accounts of the same. --and for more, one can go here or here, in light of how many other scholars have been noting the same for sometime now. Apparently Muhammad heard them told verbally and thought they were true, when in fact, they are folklore. He couldn't tell the difference, as one who wasn't educated. They include Jesus talking as an infant and making clay birds that could fly, plus others.

On the issue of folklore within the Quran, something else that may be worth noting is that many of the things that could be folk stories learned from other Christians still have much they can convey. In example, concerning the clay pigeon example, Christ did some pretty radical miracles that may've been VERY CRAZY to see---such as spitting in mud/placing it in someone's eyes ( John 9:5-7 ) or touching one's tongue and spitting before they were healed--as in Mark 7:32-34 --and the same with Mark 8:22-24 where he spit in a man's eyes. John 2 where he turned water into wine and helped keep a party going is another famous (and hilarious ) instance that I'm reminded of. ...and much of it seems odd. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean that because it seems odd to us automatically makes it something to suspect would not further God's purpose. In the wilderness experience in Matthew 4, if God commanded Jesus to turn stones into bread, that would have not been a problem. For God made food and Jesus being God could have done so. But his purpose in the wilderness was to fast...and had He turned stones to bread without first being One with the Father in reflecting His Will, He would have been acting without proper authority. What Satan tried to do with Jesus was to get Him to use His powers to satisfy His own desires rather than trusting God to supply all that He needed during His temptation...which Jesus responded to by reminding the enemy what the people of Israel should have learned in the wilderness (Deuteronomy 8:3).

Likewise, with clay pigeons, I don't think it'd be a good example for one to use if trying to show where Islam may miss it with stories of Christ. For even if/when it may not be a true story, it still does show the dynamic of what Scripture testifies to when saying that Jesus obeyed as a man, as the representive for all who believe so as to "fulfill all righteousness" ( Matthew 3:15, Hebrews 2:5-18, Hebrews 5:1-10, etc).

The same dynamics, IMHO, would also apply to things such as the Talmud and Rabbinical sources which are often quoted as authoritative, even if many weren't expressely mentioned in the Torah--for although some have aspects to them which are not really accurate according to the Torah and some things can be speculative, they can still offer valuable insights which can be benefical when having a Hebraic perspective on who the Messiah is.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

There is no evidence Yeshua tried to "convert" the Samaritans to anything. He called them neighbors and friends.

True.

And the ways he interacted with other groups cannot be denied if we're going to claim to follow Him since he was very clear on MULTIPLE things that God had a heart for humanity.

Even those who were not Jewish followers of God were not seen by him as automatically disconnected from being children of God---and Paul didn't have such a mindset either. What scripture notes is that it doesn't seem to just be those who are believers that were ever deemed to be "children of the Lord" since being a Son of God has multiple senses---one in the sense of belief in who He is/living like Him and the other in the sense of being made by Him ( Philippians 2:14-16/ Philippians 2 )...and another which goes even further with saying one trusts in Yeshua, enabling them to become true sons of the Lord ( Romans 8 , Galatians 4:5-7 , Hebrews 2:9-11 / Hebrews 2 , Galatians 3:25-27 / Galatians 3 , 1 John 3:1-3 / 1 John 3).

As said best by the ministry of Gregory McDonald:

When speaking of God as the Father of men, Christ addressed both his disciples and the crowds, indiscriminately (Matt. 5:1-2; 23:1, 9). From this it may be inferred that Christ understood God to be the Father of all to whom he spoke, and, therefore, the Father of all people in some sense. Christ also taught that God is the Father of those who may or may not be called his "sons" (Matt 5:43-45); that he is the Father of those who may be guilty of acting hypocritically (Matt 6:1); that he is the Father of those from whom divine forgiveness may be withheld (Matt 6:14-15; Mark 11:25); and that he is the Father of those who are said to be "evil" (Matt 7:11). Such language used by Christ seems inconsistent with the view that God's fatherhood is limited to only a part of mankind. The well-known parable of the "prodigal son" (Luke 15:11-32) beautifully illustrates Christ's views concerning the fatherhood of God. In this parable, both brothers are sons of their father by nature and birth, and the kindred bond of the father to his sons could not be annulled by their disobedience. Even in his state of relational estrangement and immorality, the younger son remained the object of his father's love, and when the son "came to himself" and returned to his father, he was welcomed back by his father with open arms and tears. Similarly, even after the older son is revealed to have been just as estranged from the Father and "lost" as the younger son was (as his heart was full of jealously, hatred and self-righteousness), Jesus has the father re-affirming the filial bond that remained unbroken between them (vv. 31-32).

Further evidence that Christ understood the fatherhood of God in a universal sense may be found in the teaching of the apostle Paul, who (it may be reasonably expected) would not have taught anything that contradicted the teaching of his Lord. After quoting the Stoic philosopher Aratus, Paul refers to himself and the Athenian pagans to whom he spoke as God's "offspring" (Acts 17:28-29). To the Ephesians Paul spoke of God as being the "God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all" (Eph 4:6). It may be objected that Paul could only have had believers in view here, since he refers to the Father as being "through all and in all." But in the verses from Acts previously referred to it would appear that Paul agreed with the Cretan philosopher Epimenides, who wrote, "For in him we live and move and have our being." There is nowhere we can go where God is not (Psalm 139:7-10; Jer 23:23-24). He is everywhere present by his Spirit (i.e., his operative power and presence), permeating even our very being.

There is, however, a sense in which God is not the Father of all people, and all people are not his children. We have already noted how Christ exhorted his disciples to become sons of one who already was their Father (Matt 5:43-45). But in what sense can it be said that God is not one's Father, and a person not his son? Answer: this can only be the case when we are not like him in character, as manifested in our thoughts and actions. Jesus taught that God loves both the good and the evil, the just and the unjust (Matt 5:43-47). It is in view of this divine perfection that we are exhorted to do the same so that we may be like him (v. 48). It is only in doing so that we may thereby enjoy the privilege of being called his children in the sense of which Christ is speaking here. Similarly, John taught that it is those who receive Christ and believe on his name (which implies believing that he will accomplish the redemptive purpose for which he was sent by God, as well as embracing and practically applying his teachings) whom God gives "the right to become children of God" (John 1:12). To become a child of God in this sense is to be regenerated, or "born again." But it must be emphasized that even before a person becomes a child of God in this sense (i.e., by faith in Christ), God was already their heavenly Father. What Christ and John meant by our being "born again" is illustrated by Paul's "adoption" imagery. For Paul, adoption into God's family is simply the raising of those who already are God's children (i.e., by virtue of having been made in his image) to the true position of a son or daughter, with all of its blessings and privileges (Gal 4:1-7).

In John 8:37-45, Jesus declares that, in some sense, God was not the father of the unbelieving Jews. What does Christ mean here? We know that Christ cannot mean that God was not their father in any sense whatsoever, for he would then be contradicting not only his own teaching, but also the prophet Malachi, who rhetorically asked his Jewish brethren, "Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?" (Mal 2:10) Malachi's words were addressed to those in Israel who were, in spirit, no different from the unbelieving Jews of Christ's day. They certainly had no less of a need to turn to God in repentance. But in spite of their waywardness and guilt before God, there was still a sense in which God remained their "Father." And what sense was this? Answer: God had established Israel as a nation and bestowed upon the Jewish people their identity as a set-apart people, and was, in this sense, the common "Father" of the Israelites in a peculiar sense in which he was not the "Father" of the heathen (cf. Deut 32:6; Isa 63:7-19; 64:8; Hos 11:1). Is Christ then denying this fact on which the prophet Malachi was placing a special emphasis? No; the sense in which Christ implied that God was not the father of the unbelieving Jews must therefore be different than the sense of which Malachi speaks. It must also be different than the sense in which Christ spoke during his Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere. What then does Christ mean?

It is evident from the context that our Lord is speaking of fatherhood and sonship in the sense of likeness in character and purpose, as manifested in one's intentions and actions. Jesus was simply stating that the unbelieving Jews could not claim God as their father in the sense of resembling him in character or purpose. They were instead "children of the devil (or slanderer)" in the sense that they shared the deceptive and murderous character of the "serpent" that tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden. In no other sense could the unbelieving Jews be said to be children of the devil, and in no other sense could it be said that God was not their father, and they not his children. Just as the devil was said by Christ to have been "a murderer from the beginning," so the unbelieving Jews sought to kill Jesus (v. 37, 40). And just as the devil was said by Christ to be "a liar, and the father of lies" so the unbelieving Jews spoke lies about Christ and rejected the truth he spoke (vv. 45-46). Thus, as they were in their ethical resemblance the children of the devil, so they could not, in this respect, claim God as their Father, for there was no likeness in character between them. Verse 39 explains the meaning: "If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing what Abraham did." This corresponds to v. 42: "If God were your Father, you would love me." Of course they were Abraham's children by nature or descent, as Christ himself acknowledged later (v. 56). But they were not, however, Abraham's children in an ethical sense; they did not in any way resemble Abraham in their character and moral actions. While Abraham was distinguished for his faith and righteousness, the Jews to whom Christ spoke in John 8 were distinguished for their unbelief and unrighteousness.

Thus, just as Abraham was their father in a natural sense but not in a moral or spiritual sense, so were they God's children by nature or by virtue of having been created in his image, but not by faith and obedience. In this chapter, Christ just as much denies the fatherhood of Abraham as he does the fatherhood of God. The fact is that the primal parental relation that exists by nature - both of God and of Abraham - exists independently of the moral or spiritual relation. The one is a resemblance in character, while the other is the necessity of creation and birth/ancestry, and, as such, can be neither changed nor abolished. A child may be very disobedient and rebellious, but that does not annul his natural, kindred relationship to his parent. The fact that he is a child is in the very nature of things.

This may be illustrated by the parable of the prodigal son. In view of the selfishness, wanton behavior and indifference toward his father displayed at the beginning of the parable, the younger son could be said to have been (in some sense at least) "a child of the devil" or "a child of wrath." As long as he continued in disobedience there was a sense in which he could not be called his father's child, for he did not resemble his father in character. But there still remained a kindred bond between them that could not be broken by his selfish actions. The father still loved him, and longed for his estranged son to return and be reinstated as his son. When he returned to his father, it was as if the younger son - who was formerly "dead" and "lost" - had been "born again." When the father called for his servants to put the "best robe" on his son, to put a ring on his hand, and to prepare a feast for him, the father was essentially "adopting" his son back into the family.


​

__________________
__________________

 

[sevengreenbeans]

True.

And the ways he interacted with other groups cannot be denied if we're going to claim to follow Him since he was very clear on MULTIPLE things that God had a heart for humanity.

It is evident from the context that our Lord is speaking of fatherhood and sonship in the sense of likeness in character and purpose, as manifested in one's intentions and actions. Jesus was simply stating that the unbelieving Jews could not claim God as their father in the sense of resembling him in character or purpose. They were instead "children of the devil (or slanderer)" in the sense that they shared the deceptive and murderous character of the "serpent" that tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden. In no other sense could the unbelieving Jews be said to be children of the devil, and in no other sense could it be said that God was not their father, and they not his children. Just as the devil was said by Christ to have been "a murderer from the beginning," so the unbelieving Jews sought to kill Jesus (v. 37, 40). And just as the devil was said by Christ to be "a liar, and the father of lies" so the unbelieving Jews spoke lies about Christ and rejected the truth he spoke (vv. 45-46). Thus, as they were in their ethical resemblance the children of the devil, so they could not, in this respect, claim God as their Father, for there was no likeness in character between them. Verse 39 explains the meaning: "If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing what Abraham did." This corresponds to v. 42: "If God were your Father, you would love me." Of course they were Abraham's children by nature or descent, as Christ himself acknowledged later (v. 56). But they were not, however, Abraham's children in an ethical sense; they did not in any way resemble Abraham in their character and moral actions. While Abraham was distinguished for his faith and righteousness, the Jews to whom Christ spoke in John 8 were distinguished for their unbelief and unrighteousness.

Thus, just as Abraham was their father in a natural sense but not in a moral or spiritual sense, so were they God's children by nature or by virtue of having been created in his image, but not by faith and obedience. In this chapter, Christ just as much denies the fatherhood of Abraham as he does the fatherhood of God. The fact is that the primal parental relation that exists by nature - both of God and of Abraham - exists independently of the moral or spiritual relation. The one is a resemblance in character, while the other is the necessity of creation and birth/ancestry, and, as such, can be neither changed nor abolished. A child may be very disobedient and rebellious, but that does not annul his natural, kindred relationship to his parent. The fact that he is a child is in the very nature of things.
​

______________
_______________

This is why it is not good to slander others, because this is murder of a soul. Rabbi Lazer Brody has some good teachings on this concept. Ultimately all that we see is created by YHWH, so we slander His creation by slandering others.

He expects us to hold to His standard, and there are steps outlined for us to follow when dealing with a substandard situation. Slander goes outside of the guideline, because these are solely the words of man used to attack, belittle, or demean. How can we call ourselves His children when we behave in such manner?

Surely actions speak louder than words, but words can be heard loud and clear, as well. Words must match actions.

 

[sur]

In Islamic opinion Islam did not begin from Mohammed period but from Adam. Adam was born a Muslim and so were his descendents. “Muslim” was generally not converted to but born to.
So we can understand why a “born Muslim” is prohibited to convert to non-Mohammed route. Mohammed was regarded as the way of Muslim.

Yes muslims do believe that Adam & all other prophets were muslim in the sense that they worshiped ONE God Almighty & did not intercede thru other intermediaries like idols, graves, Jinns(genies), or Jesus... Jesus himself prayed to God alone,,, fell on face to worship HIM,, fasted, (was circumcised !), preached charity to poor, mentioned that Angels, previous prophets, previous holy book(s) -&- day of judgement were true. These are the things that define a Muslim, so he was a muslim.


Below, Prophet Muhammad in presence of Angel Jibrael gave us definition of who a "Muslim" is:
Sahih Bukhari: Volumn 6, Book 60, Hadith Number 300.
-----------------------------------------
Narated By Abu Huraira : One day while Allah's Apostle was sitting with the people, a man(Gabriel in form of a man) came to him walking and said, "O Allah's Prophet. What is Belief(Eman)?" The Prophet said, "Belief is to believe in Allah, His Angels, His Books, His Apostles, and the meeting with Him, and to believe in the Resurrection." The man asked, " O Allah's Apostle What is Islam?" The Prophet replied, "Islam is to worship Allah and not worship anything besides Him, to offer prayers perfectly, to pay the (compulsory) charity i.e. Zakat and to fast the month of Ramadan." The man again asked, "O Allah's Apostle What is Ihsan (i.e. perfection or Benevolence)?" The Prophet said, "Ihsan is to worship Allah as if you see Him, and if you do not achieve this state of devotion, then (take it for granted that) Allah sees you." The man further asked, "O Allah's Apostle When will the Hour be established?"...


Bukhari:Volumn:1, Book 2, Hadith Number 47.
Narated By Abu Huraira : One day while the Prophet was sitting in the company of some people, (The angel) Gabriel came and asked, "What is faith?" Allah's Apostle replied, 'Faith is to believe in Allah, His angels, (the) meeting with Him, His Apostles, and to believe in Resurrection." Then he further asked, "What is Islam?" Allah's Apostle replied, "To worship Allah Alone and none else, to offer prayers perfectly to pay the compulsory charity (Zakat) and to observe fasts during the month of Ramadan." Then he further asked, "What is Ihsan (perfection)?" Allah's Apostle replied, "To worship Allah as if you see Him, and if you cannot achieve this state of devotion then you must consider that He is looking at you." Then he further asked, "When will the Hour be established?" Allah's Apostle replied, "The answerer has no better knowledge than the questioner. But I will inform you about its portents.

=
=
=
=
=


But as to other highlighted part, that muslims are forbidden to leave islam; it's based on grave mis-understanding that un-fortunately has become widespread too. But still a misinterpretation of original events.



It would be off-topic but I felt i should say at least something on this issue (LINK). Quran is the utmost authority in islam & it clearly says "there is NO compulsion in religion". Then where did this idea originate that muslim cannot leave islam!!! It is a misunderstanding of events:-

Like there were few guys who faked conversion to islam & then asked Prophet Muhammad for a camel. Prophet gave them camel & a camel driver. They went on a journey & on way they ""KILLED"" the camel driver, & ran away with camel & boasted about their fake conversion. Prophet ordered them to be arrested & executed. People use this event to claim that there's death sentence for leaving islam, while in fact they were given death sentence for ""KILLING"" the driver, & NOT for apostasy...

Because we have other cases of apostasy where NO punishment was given. Like a Christian who converted & became a scribe for Prophet. Then he went renegade & left islam. He wasn't even touched & died his natural death later.

Some people of that time might have misunderstood just like people misunderstand NOW, & killed apostates. But action of those "people" is NOT which islam is based upon.

 

[ContraMundum]

Jesus was a Muslim, claims U.S. religions professor

Shedinger, who is the head of the religious studies department at Luther College in Iowa, also argued that Islam is a better fit for Jesus since it is not a religion but a “social justice movement,”

So should Jesus be a religion? Should Yeshua be the God in the Flesh worthy of worship?

...and so another academic loses his faith and falls under the delusion of the times.

Too bad he wasn't born again.

 

[CherubRam]

Jesus was a Muslim, claims U.S. religions professor

Shedinger, who is the head of the religious studies department at Luther College in Iowa, also argued that Islam is a better fit for Jesus since it is not a religion but a “social justice movement,”

So should Jesus be a religion? Should Yeshua be the God in the Flesh worthy of worship?

In order for Yeshua to be a Muslim, he would have to convert from Judaism. Conversion would mean that he thought Judaism was a mistake. Not a snow balls chance.